Property taxes to go up by as much as 5 cents unless school districts curb spending

Jeb Spaulding, secretary of the Agency of Administration, talks to reporters at a press conference called by Sen. Randy Brock, the GOP candidate for governor. Photo by Anne Galloway

Jeb Spaulding, secretary of the Agency of Administration. Photo by Anne Galloway

The statewide property tax will increase three cents to five cents this year, according to the Shumlin administration.

Unless schools make an effort to cut spending or the state makes a change in the base education rate formula, the statewide property tax rate will go up five cents for every $100 worth of property value. The current rate for commercial property is $1.38 and the rate for homestead property is 89 cents. Rates can be higher in local jurisdictions, which are based on local spending levels.

Tax Commissioner Mary Petersen is expected to send a letter to lawmakers about the increase by Dec. 1. She declined to say what the rate would be.

In a letter to school districts on Monday, Gov. Peter Shumlin asks educational leaders, i.e. superintendents, business office managers and school board members, to keep their budgets in check. The letter makes it clear that if schools spend more than the rate of inflation (2.2 percent) the statewide property tax rate will likely go up by as much as 5 cents.

The governor points out that while schools have performed well he says schools must “redouble efforts to constrain, if not reduce, education spending.”

State officials say early estimates show that school spending will likely go up by 4.8 percent in the coming year. That increase translates to a 5 cent uptick, based on current numbers and statutory requirements that provide for inflation-adjusted increases in the funding formula for schools.

“By all accounts, our spending levels are among the highest in the nation,” Shumlin writes.

Shumlin, like his Republican predecessor Gov. Jim Douglas, asks school leaders to hold the line on school spending at a time when student enrollments continue to decline. There are currently 89,400 students in Vermont schools; next year the number is expected to drop by 650.

“If you all can hold school spending to the rate of inflation the increase will be less,” Shumlin writes. “I understand that situations vary by district and support local decision making by school boards and voters, but acknowledge that we are looking at the fifteenth consecutive year of declining enrollments.”

Despite a dramatic decline in enrollments from a recent high of 103,000 students, Vermont consistently ranks among the top education spending states. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank, placed the state seventh in school spending. Vermont has the third highest public education spending rate on a per capita basis in the country, according to a ranking published by Deseret News, a Salt Lake City newspaper this year.

The governor’s letter is accompanied by a spreadsheet that details spending levels for every school district in the state. The average spending per pupil is $12,788. Mount Tabor, in Rutland County, will spend about $9,038 per pupil this year, while the Reading school district in Windsor County, will spend $18,650 on each student this year.

Jeb Spaulding, the secretary of the Agency of Administration, said the two biggest factors that affect the statewide property tax rate are spending at the local level and the grand list, or the market value of real estate, on which the rates are calculated. “The governor doesn’t control either one of those,” Spaulding said.

The only way the administration and lawmakers can reduce the statewide rate is by lowering the per pupil base education state reimbursement rate for schools. The difference between that rate and the actual cost to educate students is made up by local property tax increases.

Steve Dale, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, said the letter is reasonable. “It’s just a reminder to boards as putting finishing touches on their budgets,” Dale said. “It’s important to be aware of the fact there’s very limited funds and it’s important to keep spending within limits.”

Upward pressures could make keeping budgets in check difficult, Dale said.

Health insurance premiums are set to increase by 14 percent this year.


Anne Galloway

Leave a Reply

21 Comments on "Property taxes to go up by as much as 5 cents unless school districts curb spending"

1000

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Cynthia Browning
4 years 7 days ago
Remember that the administration and the legislature decided to reduce the contribution from the General Fund to the Education Fund by some $27 million by rebasing the formula used to determine the amount of that transfer. If that $27 million was replaced, the property tax rate could be lower by about 3 cents. That being said, all school boards certainly do need to do everything that they can to hold the line on spending. But it is just hard for me to read the last two paragraphs of the report above, about how there is nothing the administration or the… Read more »
Scott Garren
4 years 7 days ago
Any discussion of school spending in Vermont should start by acknowledging that Vermont is in the top 10 states in almost every measure of education outcome and very often in the top two or three. We spend a lot on our schools and we get what we pay for! We are a small state and we take rightful pride in our small, locally responsive schools as well we should. ALEC is a far-right think tank pushing a conservative ideology and a very dubious source for objective information on any topic at all. For instance, Vermont is at the top of… Read more »
Tom Pelham
4 years 7 days ago

I’m not sure why Vt. Digger finds in necessary to search far and wide for data that profiles Vermont’s education funding system. Here are two excellent Vermont based resources:

From the Vermont Legislature:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/JFO/Education%20RFP%20Page/Picus%20and%20Assoc%20VT%20Finance%20Study%201-18-2012.pdf

From the Vermont League of Cities and Towns:

http://www.vlct.org/assets/Advocacy/Issue_Papers/2012-4_education_funding.pdf

Unfortunately, our legislative leaders have created their own “fiscal cliff” with regard to education funding and property taxes by not paying serious attention to the messages contained in these reports.

Ron Pulcer
4 years 7 days ago
In the last go around of education cuts (“Challenges for Change”), the Rutland City School Board was encouraged to make cuts by the State of Vermont. They decided to cut out the Information Technology program at Stafford Tech, and at a time when smartphones and social networking are areas where there is some job growth. There are efforts underway lately to entice people to move to VT for grow the IT industry, by the VT Software Alliance and local businesses (at least in northern VT). At the same time that, at least one school has already cut out their IT… Read more »
walter carpenter
4 years 7 days ago

“ALEC is a far-right think tank pushing a conservative ideology and a very dubious source for objective information on any topic at all.”

Agreed. ALEC is hardly a reliable source for objective information. And, also, how much is the constantly rising health insurance costs contributing to the schools having to seek higher budgets?

4 years 6 days ago
Let’s talk numbers and other random thoughts for a second: A reduction of 650 students out of almost 90,000 is a meaningless number and should be translated as “zero”. For that matter there are districts such as Bennington, Stowe and Williamstown that are seeing an increase in student numbers. (Walter – an answer to you) Hold on to your boots at town meeting – school employee related health insurance premiums are slated to go up 12.8% for your fiscal year 2014 (school year 2013-14)! In Williamstown we’re paying about $70,000 (erring on the low side) per month for the district… Read more »
Ken Remsen
4 years 6 days ago

School boards have been told to expect a 14% increase in insurance rates. A reduction of 650 students spread over 300+ schools doesn’t mean significant staff reductions.

Tom Pelham
4 years 6 days ago
Ken…In 1997, Vermont’s school enrollment was 106,341. By 2008, it had fallen to 94,114 and the projection for 2013 is 88,289. Yet, from 1997 to 2008, the number of teachers and instructional aides increased from 10,786 to 13,104 and today, Vermont has the lowest ratio of students to teachers in the nation at 9.8. The national average is 15.3. While enrollments declined over 6% since 2008, education spending has increased over 11% and propety taxes are up 15.5%. On a year over year basis, your perspective on student decline makes sense, but in view of this long term trend of… Read more »
4 years 5 days ago
Tom, that doesn’t change today’s reality – a 650 drop in student count is meaningless – could just as easily be clerical errors. We on the school boards have to plan the FY ’14 (2013-14 school year) based upon the numbers for FY ’14. I see absolutely no structural flaw in the current school funding mechanism. Costs have been driven by insurance premiums, compensation for an increasingly professionalized (in a good way) staff (also think of the increased costs they bear from preparing to enter the teaching work force); increased centralized mandates and the likes. Communities and local school boards… Read more »
Tom Pelham
4 years 5 days ago
Rama….attached to the Governor’s letter was data on school spending in Vermont that profiles Vermont’s education spending per student in 2011 at $15,405. That amount multiplied by the projected 650 student decline equals over $10 million, an amount certainly not meaningless and far from “a clerical error” to statewide property tax payers. While I’ll agree with you and Ken that extracting this potential savings on a single year basis from our entangled funding system might require specialized surgery, the downward trend of declining students has been unbroken since 1997 (amounting to over 18,000 pupils) and looking at the demographics, will… Read more »
Tom Pelham
4 years 5 days ago
Rama….attached to the Governor’s letter was data on school spending in Vermont that profiles Vermont’s education spending per student at $15,405. That amount multiplied by the projected 650 student decline equals over $10 million, an amount certainly not meaningless and far from “a clerical error” to statewide property tax payers. While I’ll agree with you and Ken that extracting this potential savings on a single year basis from our entangled funding system might require specialized surgery, the downward trend of declining students has been unbroken since 1997 (amounting to over 18,000 pupils) and looking at the demographics, will remain unbroken… Read more »
Scott Mackey
4 years 6 days ago
The real issue here is that our current school finance system provides no incentives to school boards to control costs. Our system has removed the link between spending and local taxes. Simply urging school boards to exercise restraint does not work. Until last year I chaired our school board, and I can tell you that it is demoralizing to work hard to restrain spending in your own district and then pick up the paper and read that other districts throughout Vermont are hiking spending. Understandably, boards are not willing to cut programs for their kids while other districts do not.… Read more »
Carl Werth
4 years 6 days ago

Scott hits the nail right on the head!

Craig Powers
4 years 6 days ago

Guys:

It will never change because the voting block created by the income sensitized population is too BIG!!!

The same set up will be coming with Green Mountain Care and health care reform. Few will pay for the masses.

Welcome to Vermont!

Moshe Braner
4 years 6 days ago
Scott Mackey commented: “Our system has removed the link between spending and local taxes. … “income sensitivity” … This system allows school boards to raise spending without putting a significantly higher property tax burden on the majority of taxpayers in the district.” – this is a common misconception, even our previous governor said such things. But the reality of Acts 60 & 68 is that, if a district increases the per-student spending by X percent, then the tax bill (amount of money, not “rate”!) of those local taxpayers who pay by property value increases by the SAME X percent, and… Read more »
Eric Bradford
4 years 6 days ago

“higher-income residents… pay what amounts to a smaller percentage of their income.”

Excuse me?!? The only way this would be true is if someone were making nearly as much as the value of their home every year! Act 60/68 CLEARLY favors those earning below the cutoff.

Moshe Braner
4 years 6 days ago
Not so, because the rate applied to property value is different from that applied to income. Of course Act 60/68 was designed to help those with a typical house and income that is not high. That’s the whole point. But the impetus to enact it was because a typical high earner owns a house that is of lower value, relative to their income, than the situation of lower earners. E.g., just to put up some example numbers to make it clear: Household A: income: $50,000. House value: $200,000. Typical modest-income Vermonters. They pay taxes on the house even though they… Read more »
Eric Bradford
4 years 6 days ago
Now let’s consider a more typical “over the threshhold” Household C: $90K income, $300K house. They’re paying 4.5% of their income in school taxes alone, or 7-7.5% of their income in total property tax. If they have the bad fortune to live in a $400K house, the numbers are 6% school tax and 8.5-9% total. The national median is for total property tax as a percentage of income is 2.7%. If your “Household A” is making, say, $75K – much more typical for a family in a $200K house – they’re still paying under 3% in school taxes. “should ones… Read more »
Tom Haviland
4 years 6 days ago

I recall at one point seeing a graph of school spending with healthcare excluded that showed increases in spending are almost entirely driven by health care costs. Unfortunately I can’t find the graph now.

But it seems pretty clear the way to fix this is to fix the cost of health care problem. Hopefully our single payer system will do that.

Moshe Braner
4 years 5 days ago
Eric: both of us are presenting rough example numbers, so it’s hard to compare. But assume that the (school) property tax on the $400,000 house was $5000 as in my example, then on the $300,000 house it would be $3750. That is just over 4% of an income of $90,000. Now suppose that the threshold for “income sensitivity” is right there at $90,000. The income sensitivity rebate phases out gradually as one’s income approaches the threshold, so if the income was $89,000 they’d pay almost as much. Only as their income decreases significantly below the threshold would the rebate be… Read more »
Eric Bradford
4 years 5 days ago
“The highest tax as percent of the income is somewhere in the middle. Again this is by design.” Oh, well that sounds great. Vermont definitely doesn’t need to worry about repelling those in the $90-150K range, they’re not the kind of people we want here anyway. The bottom line is that a typical homeowner below the income sensitivity cutoff pays less than they would without the income sensitivity provision, as evidenced by the fact that millions of dollars are returned to homeowners every year. This clearly influences their vote. Look at the graph on page 4 of this document: http://www.vlct.org/assets/Advocacy/Issue_Papers/2012-4_education_funding.pdf… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Property taxes to go up by as much as 5 cents unless school districts..."